The height importance of male athletes for the classification in the world handball championships
Abstract
Aim: The main purpose of the study was to investigate the height factor and player position with respect to final team ranking in the three age categories, youths, juniors and seniors.
Methods: Data was analyzed from 24 participating teams for seniors (n=972, age=27.3±4.5), juniors (n=622 age= 19.9±1.0) and youths (1035 age=18.8±0.2) from official data from the selected last male World Handball Championships of 2013-2019. For each participating player, his position was noted too: backs (left and right), pivot (line player), goalkeeper, back (center) and wings (left and right). The final team ranking was recorded and the 24 teams were divided into 3 ranking groups of 8 teams.
Results: The ANOVA test proved that mean heights were significantly different between the three age group (seniors: 190.04±7.33, juniors: 187.28±8.13, youths: 186.84±7.55, F(2,3095)=61.1 p<0.001). Effect size 0.039. In all ranked groups and all categories, the heights of the players were significantly different between different player positions. The discrimination ability of height in all three categories and player positions represented an overall percentage of around 70% in correctly classifying the three 8-team ranking tiers.
Conclusion: Height is a factor that differentiates high level performance for both players’ position and age categories. The practical results can help the national federations and coaches apply more effective strategies for player selection.
” Height is a factor that differentiates high level performance for both players’ position and age categories”
Introduction
Handball is in a state of continual development and holds an important position in the athletic world. Its emergence is also based on the great variety of quick movements with continual game changes from defense to offense which makes it spectacular1. Handball has a long tradition in Europe and is making headway in other continents too. It is an invasive team sport with a clear aim to score a goal and hinder the opponent from scoring2. It is guided by the International Handball Federation (I.H.F). Competitiveness in international events at the European and World levels is one of the factors for the development of the sport. The I.H.F is responsible to run seniors, junior and youth world championships. Only athletes under 21 years of age participate in the juniors’ events while in youths’ events the age is under 19 (International Handball Federation, regulations documents)3. These age categories are important as they form the pool of players that progress to the senior level and are vital for the development process of the sport in every country.
The level of the sport in every country is reflected in club and national team results. The important difference is that clubs can sign on players of different nationalities. In professional team sports a transfer industry has developed for the free movement of athletes especially after the implications of the 1995 (case C-415/93) Judgement of the European Court of Justice on the case of Jean‐Marc Bosman4, 5, 6. The aforementioned possibility is unavailable to national teams and consequently the national team is an important indicator of the sport in every country and is related to the supply of native players. Thus the national teams somehow reflect the level of the sport in the country, although this depends on many factors such as the organizational structure of the athletic authorities and federations, popularity and degree of appeal to children, talent identification infrastructure, the operation of sports schools and club investment, whether the sport is played at a professional or amateur level and even the dynamics and competitiveness of the league7.
“According to studies, it has been demonstrated that in handball, the anthropometric characteristics is an important and determinant factor in youth and adult level performances, 11,12,13”
Handball is evolving dynamically, becoming more spectacular with an ever-increasing pace in the game8. Technical and tactical components such as throwing velocity9,10 is undoubtedly crucial and have been the topic of many studies. Body dimensions influence the choice of tactical model without underestimating the value of motor skills. The technical, tactical and physical preparation of the athletes as well as the specific innate body characteristics all together form a complex influential factor in the development of the sport. According to studies, it has been demonstrated that in handball, the anthropometric characteristics is an important and determinant factor in youth and adult level performances11,12,13. The anthropometric index is a factor that affects the results and final ranking of the teams in a study that referred to a sample of teams that participated in the 2017 Men’s World Handball Championship14. In a study by Debanne and Guillaume15, once again the anthropometric characteristics are taken as a factor in a multiple regression model concerning the French and German professional seniors handball league. The advantage of athletes with large anthropometrics has been demonstrated through studies and in particular palm dimensions for both handball and basketball athletes16 and in elite junior handball players17. According to Malina et al.18 body dimensions are factors that discriminate athletes from non-athletes. Moreover, some anthropometric indices had a strong or less strong influence on motor ability tests with respect to age, keeping in mind the multidimensional aspect of handball with many components of performance19, 20, 21, 22, 23. It is accepted that body structure and morphological characteristics affect athletic performance considering differences in age and type of sport, while they explain the high percentage of variance in physical fitness tests24. Despite the many studies concerning somatometric indices and performance, playing position and height in successive age categories have not been adequately studied especially in top level competitions. The working hypothesis is that the players’ height in different positions contributes to the teams’ performance as reflected by their ranking in the studied championships. The main purpose of the study was to investigate the height factor and player position with respect to final team ranking in the three age categories, youths, juniors and seniors.
Methods
Participants
Data was drawn from 24 participating teams, male youths and juniors in the 2019, 2017 and 2015 world championships and senior world championships of 2019, 2017 and 2013. In total, n=2629 athletes (seniors n=972, age=27.3±4.5, juniors n= 622, age= 19.9±1.0, youth n=1035, age=18.8±0.2) were recorded. For each player it was obligatory to record measurements of age, height, weight and play position. If even one measurement was missing then this constituted exclusion of that particular player. The data was compiled from the official published team reports from records of the International Handball Federation (I.H.F)25.
Anthropometric measurements, player position, team ranking
Height and weight measurements were recorded and the Body Mass Index was calculated26 for each participating player while the player position was noted too: backs (left and right, L-R), pivot (line player), goalkeeper, back (center, C) and wings (left and right, L-R). The technical commission of each national federation was obliged to declare the above data. In addition, the final team ranking was recorded, which was from 1 to 24.
Statistical Analysis
All the variables satisfied the tests of homoscedasticity (Levene’s variance homogeneity test) and normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) of their distributions. Between groups differences of height, weight and BMI were checked with the one-way ANOVA procedure, reporting the p-values and the effect size through partial eta squared (η2), followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections. Linear regression analysis per category and players’ position was employed to infer the effect of height on the team’s final ranking in the championships, assuming the ranking to be a continuous wide range from 1 to 24. Discriminant analysis was also used after dividing the teams into two groups: the first eight versus the rest of the teams. The level of significance was set at 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS v.26.
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics (means and standard deviation) and comparative statistics of height, weight and Body Mass Index (BMI) between the three age categories. Furthermore, only the height variable was taken into consideration being a prevalent variable in handball.
| Parameter | Senior (n=972) (Mean ±SD) | Junior (n=622) (Mean ±SD) | Youth (n=1035) (Mean ±SD) | ANOVA test | p-value | Effect size (η2) | |
| Height (cm) | 190.04±7.33 | 187.28±8.13 | 186.84±7.55 | F(2.3095)=61.1 | <0.001* | 0.039 | |
| Weight (Kg) | 91.98±10.13 | 86.22±11.30 | 84.77±10.72 | F(2.1377)=151.8 | <0.001* | 0.091 | |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 25.44±2.03 | 24.51±2.22 | 24.21±2.12 | F(2.1377)=107.8 | <0.001* | 0.067 | |
SD=Standard deviation, BMI=Body Mass index *= all three age categories differed significantly between each other
The ANOVA procedure showed that the three categories differed significantly in all three measures (height, weight and BMI). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections showed that all three categories differed significantly between each other.
The mean heights of the players in the youth teams and junior teams when compared to those in the seniors teams had differences of -1.68% and -1.45% respectively.
In Table 2 we can see the mean values and standard deviation of height relative to team ranking per eight-tier ranking position
| Ranking groups | Senior (n=972) (Means ±SD) | Junior (n=622) (Means ±SD) | Youth (n=1035) (Means ±SD) |
| 1-8 | 192.19±6.80 (n=300) | 190.84±6.95 (n=209) | 189.60±6.62 (n=336) |
| 9-16 | 190.92±6.46 (n=355) | 187.72±7.74 (n=193) | 187.66±6.80 (n=287) |
| 17-24 | 186.96±7.68 (n=317) | 183.51±7.90 (n=220) | 184.03±7.80 (n=412) |
| ANOVA test | F(2.1377)=69.1 | F(2.620)=51.0 | F(2.1032)=58.3 |
| p-value | <0.001* | <0.001* | <0.001* |
| Effect size (η2) | 0.091 | 0.141 | 0.102 |
SD=Standard deviation *= all three ranking groups differed significantly between each other in all three age categories.
The respective height values of youth and junior with respect to seniors according to eight-tier ranking position is: Positions (1-8) -1.35% and -0.7%, (9-16) -1.71% and -1.68%, (17-24)
-1.58 % and -1.85%
The ANOVA test proved that mean heights were significantly different between the three ranking groups in all three categories. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections showed that all three ranking groups differed significantly between each other in all three categories.
In table 3, the mean height, standard deviation and ANOVA test per age category and player position can be seen.
| Players positions | Senior (Means ±SD) | Junior (Means ±SD) | Youth (Means ±SD) |
| Backs (L-R) | 193.28 ±6.78a (n=290) | 189.85±7.68a (n=192) | 189.09±7.16a (n=323) |
| Pivot | 193.66±6.76a (n=167) | 191.86±7.23a (n=76) | 190.39±6.82a (n=152) |
| Goalkeeper | 191.15±5.83b (n=137) | 189.62±6.81a (n=87) | 188.90±6.62a (n=145) |
| Back (C) | 187.49±6.27 c (n=146) | 184.64±8.00b (n=112) | 185.03±6.96b (n=161) |
| Wing (L-R) | 184.11±6.01d (n=232) | 182.37±6.67c (n=155) | 181.83±6.37c (n=254) |
| ANOVA test | F(4.967)=88.6 | F(4.617)=36.6 | F(4.1030)=59.5 |
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Effect size (η2) | 0.268 | 0.192 | 0.188 |
SD=Standard deviation, L-R = Left-Right, C= center. Different superscript letters denote statistically significant differences between players positions
In all three categories, players playing as pivots or backs (L-R) are significantly higher than players in other positions. In juniors and youths, goalkeepers are as tall as pivots and backs (L-R). In the other positions, the same pattern occurs in all three categories, with Goalkeeper higher than Back (Center Back) higher than Wing (L-R) differing significantly from each other.
In table 4, the mean height, standard deviation and ANOVA test per age category, player position eight per tier (1-8, 9-16, 17-24) can be seen.
SD=Standard deviation, L-R = Left-Right, C= center. Different superscript letters denote statistically significant differences between players positions.
The ANOVA procedure proved that in all ranked groups and all categories, the heights of the players were significantly different between different positions. The patterns of difference to a great extent show that the wing and back (C) positions have statistically significant differences between them and between the other positions. Backs (L R) and pivots are statistically significantly taller than others. It is noteworthy that in ranked positions 1-8, in all three categories, goalkeeper height is not significantly different compared to backs and pivots.
In table 5, we can see regression analysis, correlation coefficient of the dependence of the ranking on the player’s height for each age category and player position. In all cases the negative regression coefficients are all significantly different from zero, thus corroborating the association between players’ height and team performance.
| Players | Senior | Junior | Youth | ||||||
| Positions | r | b | p-value | r | b | p-value | r | b | p-value |
| Backs(L-R) | .472 | -.473 | .000 | .455 | -.406 | .000 | .318 | -.316 | .000 |
| Pivot | .432 | -.433 | .000 | .459 | -.398 | .000 | .395 | -.425 | .000 |
| Goalkeeper | .437 | -.518 | .000 | .496 | -.486 | .000 | .332 | -.368 | .000 |
| Back (C) | .387 | -.410 | .000 | .576 | -.492 | .000 | .471 | -.489 | .000 |
| Wing (L-R) | .234 | -.269 | .000 | .204 | -.204 | .011 | .283 | -.331 | .000 |
L-R = Left-Right, C= center, r=correlation coefficient, b=regression coefficient
The teams’ rankings were divided into two groups – in the first group, teams were ranked from 1-8 and in the second group, teams were ranked 9-24. Discriminant analysis for each category and position proved that in most cases, height could correctly predict more than 70% of the final group membership of the teams (Table 6).
| Players Positions | Senior | Junior | Youth |
| Backs (L-R) | 71.4% | 68.8% | 69.7% |
| Pivot | 64.1% | 67.1% | 70.4% |
| Goalkeeper | 73.7% | 70.1% | 68.3% |
| Back (C) | 69.9% | 75.9% | 67.7% |
| Wing (L-R) | 71.1% | 69.0% | 68.9% |
L-R = Left-Right, C= center
Discussion
The main purpose of the study was to investigate the height factor and player position with respect to final team ranking in the three age categories, youths, juniors and seniors. The player positions were backs (left and right), pivot (line player), goalkeeper, back (center) and wings (left and right). The results show that height is statistically significantly different between categories. Corresponding studies present similar results27, 28. Anthropometric characteristics are fundamental to achieving the optimum development of athletic performance and can influence how well players respond to the demands of the specific game position. The training process is among the basic factors that determines the athlete’s morphological differences in the circular measures of the body volume, but height, which is the subject of the study, is genetically determined and age related and remains largely unaffected by training29, 30. In the senior category, the mean height of players in the 24 participating teams was 190.04 cm, similar to the height noted by Chaouachi et al.31 with a mean height reported as 189.5 cm in a sample comprising athletes from the Tunisian national team. The corresponding height for juniors was 187.28 cm while for youths it was 186.84 cm. The statistical differences of mean height between seniors, juniors and youths are deemed to be logical because especially for youths, their maturity is still in process32,33. This is also explained by the age-limited choice from the pool of players inthese two categories, which is laid down by the rules of the federation.
Despite the differences of mean height between categories, it must be noted that the mean values of height for youths and juniors respectively comprise -1.68% and -1.45% the mean height of the senior team. The height values for youths and juniors compared to decrease even more to -1.35% and – 0.7% respectively when in the study we take into account the team ranking position within the first 8 positions. In effect, this means that high-level seniors teams choose to build them from the youth and junior categories based on somatometric criteria obviously with the development of technical and tactical skills and through talent identification programs34,35,36. It is obvious that an athlete’s development process and performance continues to evolve thus enhancing physical parameters and perfecting the technical tactical characteristics and gained playing experience. Participation of athletes in the youth and junior categories is a critical stage before finally entering the seniors national team. Training in childhood is important for their future development taking into account the pedagogical aspect but their performance before the age of sixteen is not a good predictor of adult performance37 while accounting for the relative age effect on the selection of athletes and team performance38. Only in exceptional cases do we witness younger talented players becoming part of a higher age category.
The 24 teams participating in the world championships were divided into three ranking dependent groups, 1-8, 9-16 and 17-24 per age category. Τhe analysis of variance between the three ranked groups in all three categories showed that there were statistically significant differences between these groups in all three age categories. It is evident that a taller body equates to a better ranking position. The taller player has an advantage as he has the ability to cover greater defense areas which is very important in any zone defense provided that other performance parameters such as technical, tactical and physical condition are at a satisfactory level. With reference to offense, the ability of the player to shoot above the defense block is a clear advantage. Our results are in accordance with those of Hasan et al.39 with a sample of the teams participating in the 12th Asian Games in Hiroshima, Japan. The players in the successful teams, the ones ranked in the first three positions, with respect to the remaining two participating teams, the unsuccessful ones, were found to be significantly statistically taller. It seems that being taller is not only correlated with better results for national teams but also for the club teams comparing teams from both the first and second league handball in national championship40. Our findings show similar results to those of Fieseler et al.41 where players in the first German league were statistically higher with respect to players in the third German handball league.
In handball there is a defined position role for every player even though it is advantageous for a player to take on different position roles in play. With regard to height, according to the results of our study, backs (left and right) and pivots are the tallest players followed by the goalkeeper, back (center) and wing who are the shortest of all. At the senior level, statistical significant differences don’t exist between backs (L-R) (193.28 ±6.78), and pivots (193.66±6.76) who are taller, followed by goalkeepers, backs (center) and wings who are the shortest players. In junior and youth goalkeepers are as tall as pivots and backs (L-R), followed by backs (center) and wings who have statistical significant differences between them. Our results partially concur with those of Srhorj et al.42 that mentions backs as the tallest players, and differences between the back court players and wing attackers are biggest in skeletal dimensions while Schwesig et al.43 concludes that wings, pivots and goalkeepers were significantly shorter than backs. Consistent with our findings are those of Sibila and Pori44 that notes that shorter players can occupy the wing position as body height is not a decisive factor for this position. The same pattern of height and playing position in selected athletes of national Greek teams between the ages of 16 and 20 was presented by Rousanoglou et al.45. In addition, Hermassi et al.46 notes that wings showed the lowest body height.
In our study, players in back positions have been differentiated into two parts, left and right and center although in many studies these positions are taken as one unified position. The backs score a large percentage of the total goals and have a complementary relation to the pivots, related to the technical tactical aspect47. Tall body height is an asset for the backs who should have ability in throws too. Height is also an advantage for the pivot player for both scoring in difficult and pressing situations and in his role in creating conditions for scoring by other players in the team. According to Almeida et al.48 with a sample of seniors from world handball championships, concludes that the best teams have the tallest players, which we witness in first division national championships 49. Further investigation into the ranking tiers, 1-8, 9-16,17-24, concluded that players in back (L-R) and pivot positions were statistically the tallest in seniors, juniors and youths in all the ranked positions. In addition, for ranking tiers 1-8 in all three categories, the goalkeeper is included in this group of taller players. This confirms that top performance teams invest in players with high body dimensions. The wings are the shortest players who, however, possess special skills and are necessary for fast break situations and often aggressive defense. The back (C) is taller than the wing and in modern handball does not only have to organize the play but also contribute to scoring. The back (C) is often seen to temporarily change positions with the left and right backs something that is necessary in modern handball.
Regression analysis found that the players’ height was a significant predictor of the ranking position for each age category and player position. Teams with taller players in all positions were found to rank high. Higher correlations at the senior level were found to be for backs (L-R), followed by the goalkeeper and pivot. In the junior category, this correlation was highest for center backs followed by the goalkeeper and similarly in the youths category this correlation was highest for the center back followed by the pivot. At top level handball, the highest percentage of total goals in a game is seen by backs and the pivot50. Therefore, for these player positions directly related to scoring, height is an advantage. The weakest correlation of player position with team ranking is exhibited in the wing position. In this particular player position, as our results show, we find shorter players who often participate in other roles such as in fast break and fast throw offense.
The team rankings were divided into two groups – in the first group, the teams were ranked from 1-8 and in the second group the teams were ranked 9-24, with a view to carry out a discrimination analysis. The results showed that there was a significant discrimination ability of height in all three categories and player positions representing an overall percentage of around 70% in correctly classifying the three 8-team ranking tiers. This correct classification proportion exceeds the theoretically expected one. The height advantage holds true as long as other performance parameters are at a satisfactory level as mentioned before. The results of the study have also shown the importance of the goalkeeper’s height. The particularity of this position lies in the longer limbs that can cover a larger area of the goalpost. The efficacy of shooting and efficacy of the goalkeeper are key performance indicators in handball. The difference between winning and losing teams are related to shots and in particular unsuccessful goal attempts (shots saved, shots missed, and shots blocked)51
Coaches and team leaders are obliged to plan a tactical model of game such that it is adapted to the somatometric and technical tactical characteristics of their players. A team without a height advantage will probably employ more of an offensive defense to lead the opponent to make mistakes and give the opportunity for steals. It will attempt to sustain a fast game play and fast breaks rather than positional attack. In practice however, top level teams have athletes who are both tall and possess all the characteristics (technical, tactical skills, explosive power, psychological skills and other) that lead them to be at the top. An overview of the results shows the importance of height in team performance52. Despite this, handball is a sport that entails many characteristics such as running, jumping and throwing, with a wide array of movements and fast decisions that require tactical and technical skills and therefore all these components should be considered.
Conclusion
The results of our study support the importance of height as a factor that differentiates high-level performance teams. This is particularly true for the positions of backs, pivot and goalkeeper. Although height is an asset, it is not sufficient on its own to provide high-level performance as the athletes need to be in great physical condition and possess complex technical tactical prowess. It seems that to reach the top position in sports, all the above conditions need to be fulfilled simultaneously. The results of the study are based on a range of data from three age categories from the strongest national teams whose participation in world championships is possible only after preliminary rounds. The practical results of the study can help the national federations and coaches in devising more effective strategies for player selection and develop.
References
1.Wagner, H., Finkenzeller, T., Würth, S., & Von Duvillard, S. P. Individual and team performance in team-handball: A review. Journal of sports science & medicine, 2014, 13(4), 808.
2. Lamas, L., Barrera, J., Otranto, G., & Ugrinowitsch, C. Invasion team sports: strategy and match modeling. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2014, 14(1), 307-329.
3. https://www.ihf.info/regulations-docuts/357?selected=Competitions
4. Quirk, J., & Fort, R. D. Pay dirt: The business of professional team sports. 1997, Princeton University Press.
5. Terviö, M. Transfer fee regulations and player develop. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2006, 4(5), 957-987.
6. Binder, J. J., & Findlay, M. The effects of the Bosman ruling on national and club teams in Europe. Journal of Sports Economics, 2012, 13(2), 107-129.
7. Meletakos, P., Noutsos, K., Manasis, V., & Bayios, I. The mediating effect of competitive balance on the relation between foreign players and performance of the Greek Nationa Basketball Team. Journal of Physical Education and Sport Management, 2014, 5(7), 72 80. https://doi.org/10.5897/JPESM2014.0195
8. Meletakos, P., Bayios, I. General trends in European ’s handball: a longitudinal study. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport,2010, vol. 10 (3), 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2010.11868517
9. Vila, H., & Ferragut, C. Throwing speed in team handball: a systematic review. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2019, 19(5), 724-736. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2019.1649344
10. Vila, H., Zapardiel, J. C., & Ferragut, C. The relationship between effectiveness and throwing velocity in a handball match. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2020, 20(2), 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2020.1726159
11. Skoufas, D., Kotzamanidis, C., Hatzikotoylas, K., Bebetsos, G., &Patikas, D. The relationship between the anthropometric variables and the throwing performance in handball. Journal of Human Movet Studies, 2003,45, 469–48
12. Lidor, R., Falk, A., Arnon, M., Cohen, Y., Segal, G., &Lander,Y. Measuret of talent in team handball: The questionable use of motor and physical tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2005, 19, 318–325, DOI:10.1519/00124278- 200505000-00014
13. Mohamed, H., Vaeyens, R., Matthys, S., Multael, M., Lefevre, J., Lenoir, M., & Philippaerts, R. Anthropometric and performance measures for the developt of a talent detection and identification model in youth handball. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2009, 27, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802482417
14. Noutsos, S.K., Rousanoglou, N.E., Meletakos, G.P., Bayios, A.I., Boudolos, D.K. Performance indicators and competition ranking in women’s and men’s World Handball Championship 2017, Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2018, 18(3), pp. 1761 – 1766, DOI:10.7752/jpes.2018.03256
15. Debanne, T., Laffaye, G. Effects of game location, quality of opposition, number of foreign players and anthropometric factors in elite handball games, Kinesiology, 2017, (2)49, pp. 194-201, https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/kinesiology/article/view/5261
16. Visnapuu, M., Toivo, J. Handgrip strength and hand dimensions in young handball and basketball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(3), pp.923-929 https://search.proquest.com/docview/213060483?pqorigsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
17. Noutsos, K., Nassis, G., Vareltis, I., Kororos, P., Skoufas, D., &Bayios, I. Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of elite junior handball players. Communication to the Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science, 2008, Estoril, Portugal
18. Malina, R.M., Meleski, B.W., Shoup, R.F. Anthropometric, body composition, andmaturity characteristics of selected school-age athletes. Pediatr Clin North American, 1982, 29(6)1305-1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-3955(16)34282-1
19. Zapartidis, I., Vareltzis, I., Gouvali, M., & Kororos, P. Physical fitness and anthropometric characteristics in different levels of young team handball players. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2009, 2, 22–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1875399X00902010022
20. Visnapuu, M., & Jürimäe, T. Relations of anthropometric parameters with scores on basic and specific motor tasks in young handball players. Perceptual and motor skills, 2009, 108(3), 670-676. https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpms.108.3.670-676
21. Ziv, G., & Lidor, R. Physical characteristics, physiological attributes, and on-court performances of handball players: A review. European Journal of Sport Science, 2009, 9, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390903038470
22. Wagner, H., Finkenzeller, T., Würth, S., & Von Duvillard, S. P. Individual and team performance in team-handball: A review. Journal of sports science & medicine, 2014, 13(4), 808. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4234950/
23. Tuquet, J., Zapardiel, J. C., Saavedra, J. M., Jaén-Carrillo, D., & Lozano, D. Relationship between Anthropometric Parameters and Throwing Speed in Amateur Male Handball Players at Different Ages. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(19), 7022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197022
24. Carter, J.E.L. Somatotypes of Olympic athletes. In: J.E.L. Carter (ed.) Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes. Part II: Kinanthropometry of Olympic Athletes. Karger, Basel, 1984, pp. 80-109
25. International Handball Federation. https://www.ihf.info/
26. Matz, R. Calculating body mass index. Annals of internal medicine, 1993,118(3), 232.
27. Michalsik, Lars Bojsen, Klavs Madsen, and Per Aagaard. Technical match characteristics and influence of body anthropome try on playing performance in male elite team handball.The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2015, 29.2, 416-428.
28. Sporiš G, Vuleta D, Vuleta D Jr, Milanović D. Fitness profiling in handball: physicaland physiological characteristics of elite players. Coll Antropol.2010, 34(3), 1009–14. https://hrcak.srce.hr/59364
29. Mcevoy, Brian P., Visscher, Peter M. Genetics of human height. Economics & Human Biology, 2009, 7,3: 294-306.
30. Weedon, Michael N., Frayling, Timothy M. Reaching new heights: insights into the genetics of human stature. Trends in genetics, 2008, 24,12: 595-603
31. Chaouachi, A., Brughelli, M., Levin, G., Boudhina, N. B., Cronin, J., & Chamari, K. Anthropometric, physiological and performance characteristics of elite team-handball players. Journal of sports sciences, 2009, 27.2,151-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802448731
32. Fransen, J., Bush, S., Woodcock, S., Novak, A., Deprez, D., Baxter-Jones, A. D., … & Lenoir, M. Improving the prediction of maturity from anthropometric variables using a maturity ratio. Pediatric exercise science, 2018, 30(2), 296-307.
33. Jones, M. A., Hitchen, P. J., & Stratton, G. The importance of considering biological maturity when assessing physical fitness measures in girls and boys aged 10 to 16 years. Annals of human biology, 2000, 27(1), 57-65.
34. Brown, J. Sports talent. 2001, Human kinetics.
35. Mohamed, H., Vaeyens, R., Matthys, S., Multael, M., Lefevre, J., Lenoir, M., & Philippaerts, R. Anthropometric and performance measures for the development of a talent detection and identification model in youth handball. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2009, 27(3), 257-266.
36. Matthys, S. P., Vaeyens, R., Vandendriessche, J., Vandorpe, B., Pion, J., Coutts, A. J., … & Philippaerts, R. M. A multidisciplinary identification model for youth handball. European Journal of Sport Science, 2011, 11(5), 355-363.
37. Boccia, G., Moisè, P., Franceschi, A., Trova, F., Panero, D., La Torre, A., … & Cardinale, M. Career performance trajectories in track and field jumping events from youth to senior success: the importance of learning and development. Plos one, 2017, 12(1), e0170744.
38. Rubia, A. D. L., Bjørndal, C. T., Sánchez-Molina, J., Yagüe, J. M., Calvo, J. L., & Maroto-Izquierdo, S. The relationship between the relative age effect and performance among athletes in World Handball Championships. Plos one, 2020, 15(3), e0230133.
39. Hasan, A., Rahaman, J. A., Cable, N. T., & Reilly, T. Anthropometric profile of elite male handball players in Asia. Biology of sport, 2007, 24(1), 3
40. Bayios, I. A., Anastasopoulou, E. M., Sioudris, D. S., & Boudolos, K. D. Relationship between isokinetic strength of the internal and external shoulder rotators and ball velocity in team handball. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 2001, 41(2), 229-235.
41. Fieseler, G., Hermassi, S., Hoffmeyer, B., Schulze, S., Irlenbusch, L., Bartels, T., & Schwesig, R. Differences in anthropometric characteristics in relation to throwing velocity and competitive level in professional male team handball: a tool for talent profiling. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 2017, 57(7-8), 985.https://doi.org/10.23736/s0022-4707.17.06938-9
42. Srhoj, M., Marinovic, M., Rogulj, N. Characteristics of Male Handball Players, Coll. Antropol. (2002), 26, (1), 219–227 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12137302/
43. Schwesig, R., Hermassi, S., Fieseler, G., Irlenbusch, L., Noack, F., Delank, K. S., & Chelly, M. S. Anthropometric and physical performance characteristics of professional handball players: influence of playing position. The Journal of Sports Medicine and physical fitness, 2017, 57(11), 1471. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0022-4707.16.06413-6
44. Sibila, M., Pori, P. Position-Related Differences in Selected Morphological Body Characteristics of Top-Level Handball Players. Coll. Antropol. 2009, 33(4), 1079–1086 https://hrcak.srce.hr/51458
45. Rousanoglou, E. N., Noutsos, K. S., Bayios, I. A. Playing level and playing position differences of anthropometric and physical fitness characteristics in elite junior handball players. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 2014, 54(5), 611-621. https://europepmc.org/article/med/25270781
46. Hermassi, S., Laudner, K. G., & Schwesig, R. Playing level and position differences in body characteristics and physical fitness performance among male team handball players. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2019, 7, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00149
47. Meletakos, P., Vagenas, G., & Bayios, I. A multivariate assessment of offensive performance indicators in Men’s Handball: Trends and differences in the World Championships. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2011, 11(2), 284-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2011.11868548
48. Almeida, A. G., Merlin, M., Pinto, A., Torres, R. D. S., & Cunha, S. A. Performance-level indicators of male elite handball teams. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2020, 20(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2019.1694305
49. Nikolaidis, P. T., Ingebrigtsen, J. Physical and physiological characteristics of elite male handball players from teams with a different ranking. Journal of human kinetics, 2013, 38: 115.
50. Meletakos, P., Noutsos, K., Bayios, I. Stable and changing characteristics of high-level handball as evidenced from World Men’s Championships, Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2020, 20(3), 1354-1361. DOI:10.7752/jpes.2020.03187
51. Daza, G., Andrés, A., & Tarragó, R. Match Statistics as Predictors of Team’s Performance in Elite competitive Handball.[Estadística del partido como predictor del rendimiento de equipo en el balonmano de élite]. RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte. 2017, 13(48), 149-161.doi: 10.5232/ricyde,
52. Khosla, T. Sport for tall. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed), 1983, 287(6394), 736-738.
*The original text was published in the journal: Motriz, Rio Claro, v. 27, 2021, e10210002621 (https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-657420210002621) from:
Panagiotis Meletakos, Konstantinos Noutsos, Alina Ioana Bartha, Ioannis Bayios
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
School of Physical Education and Sports Science,
Team Sports Department, Athens, Greece
